Altruism is expensive, greed is cheap

In our British culture we do value altruism and selflessness highly, but we want it to be a choice not a dictat! The Biblical story of the old woman who gives everything she has is compared with the rich man who can afford it and can enjoy the privilege of a healthy disposable income, is an example of the former being morally rich and materialistically poor has meant that the poor and the underclass are still willing to pay for the welfare state and especially the NHS in spite of its unfairness! What lies behind this nobility but taxes that should never be dependent on taxes on the poor but actually is indeed, why should all of us be taking advantage of those with honour and dignity when not everyone can put food on the table?

A new tax regime should be less dependent on taxing the poorest, and we should have a different perspective and calculus on how to tax based upon 'disposable income' and not welfare honour and altruism of those who give nobly and take so little. Profitable investments of the 'well fed peacocks' are once again the Dickensian 'Veneerings ' of our age. Taxes are predatory and destroy social mobility and the social fabric of individual freedom, and we have to acknowledge that the post war 1945 government were motivated by a redistributive quality which today has become a way to prevent any disposable income of the poorest and in fact has restricted and shackled the very demographics that wealth redistribution by welfare was meant to solve in 1945! Indeed, there is now a perfect storm, a catch 22 of how we pay for today's welfare state - the poorest pay by being overtaxed or not taxed but having to spend all that new disposable income on basics such as dental health care and education for their offspring! There appears to be 'robbed by Peter or by Paul by low taxation, but new privatised parts of the NHS to pay for Tax cuts in the first place. For most that is unconscionable!

One thing is for sure; the rich go private regardless. Why? Because it's a status symbol and an example of privilege whilst the poorest are struggling! But if governments could afford both low taxes and a welfare state it would need a new revenue stream!!!..... Give the low paid their disposable income back and rely on basic economics by way of the low tax higher economic activity to source a new stream of contributing to the overall GDP for the country and not in spite of it!!!?? Subsidise by customer choice in the economy to grow the economy for subtle and careful intervention by the consumer and not the government! More welfare adaptability, less taxation of those who use it! This simple accountancy has been avoided because it requires an ideological huge transition, as well as reminding those who remembered the years (largely during the expensive Cold War years) of Keynesianism! How is this possible? Perhaps the dreaded means test is not to be endured by the poorest but by the most wealthy!

Welfare exclusion by means testing the rich may require that those who are rich can not be eligible for welfare too! How? Perhaps by the measuring stick of who has 'Disposable income!!?! Indeed, the welfare state should be accessible for those who appreciate and use it the most! Remember, most big businesses will be attracted to more purchasing power of the poorest, an untapped market and attracted to the new post welfare ineligible privileged who are unique because they are inactive with regards to the economy of the welfare state! In fact, there may be many who are turned away from evading any taxes by moving abroad because of the extra activity of those who must buy their health care, for example and may see that as an incentive to tap into that new market!?! The post war dividend was the creation of the NHS, the dividend for winning the Cold War may be less government taxes on those who are the poorest especially in terms of disposable income or lack of it! Moreover, why not let the rich panto of willy wagglers from the Whitehall, Westminster and City inflate only their house prices in the home counties and let the rest of the UK move-on!??!! Perhaps we can watch the spectacle of those who are above splashing flash Harry by blueblood gravita........we can derive some pleasure in watching reality TV where 'Downton takes on Loads of money'??!!

But is this a long term or short fuse of an economic structural and economic change? Here lies the many snags: firstly, never underestimate any chancellor's temptation to tax more and intervene and interfere more than less! Secondly, I think powerful people don't like instability of wealth and inconsistency of a tax programme that doesn't prioritise them when involving tax and the treasury! Greed and malice always follow those who covet privilege!

But do we understand the implications for such transitions in ideological terms? I believe that Thatcher and the Tories are without their trump card strategy after they have maxed-out all major sell-offs of Nationalised industries in the 1980s, and Macmillan said that there is no recovering from 'selling the Household silver'!! Well, I believe he was wrong! I think the narrative today is that the nation's best interests from time to time involve saving an important feature that keeps us from being wholly dependent on foreign products like steel from China! How can we protect our borders and fulfil Brexit and yet open up our economy to an increasing lack of national independence??!! Sure, by the unusual biproduct of Nationalism we have discovered that British industry needs subsidizing to maintain our independence from over reliance on cheaper foreign products???!! The right are on-board to make losses to protect Britain? Well, that's an ideological shift!! I never thought I'd hear a Right winger celebrate Nationalisation, did you? Indeed, what if short term nationalisation by government takeover could generate a recycle of a new era of privatisation as a consequence of the taxpayer subsidizing a British industry in order to sell it off and also make huge profits for the shareholders of Britain!!? The big Mac was wrong after all! Nationalisation is a symbiotic partner of an eventual privatisation programme!!!

But the political dilemma is: Who will pay for nationalisation and which future government will 'benefit' (Yes that is a word play) from selling it off? Who will be stigmatised and who will be profiting from the sacrifice of a previous governmental policy? Do you really want to invest in your opponent's economy? Who will nationalise first and who will privatise last? Surely administrations are now calculating that if they are out of power for 10 or 15 years, they want their long-term policy to mature (to sell-off) only when they calculate that they will be back in power?! So, governments aren't just governing today but investing in 15 or 10 years time too! Isn't that why so many governments launch expensive public investments (and who count on losing political power in half-construction) so that that commits any future rival from stopping the programme and prevents new economic thinking and policy making of any new government especially by factoring in spiralling costs as the deliberate legacy of the old government, whilst encouraging any future government to have no choice but to fund the expense of nationalisation!?

Here's a 3-line whip must do: Don't be caught out by negligence on your watch by letting things slide! Irreversible inaction is politically damaging for any incumbent that they may not be electorally able to recover from.

But many will think that government by sabotage is more of a vote winner?! Even if it is low down! But what is to stop elites who will not be influenced or harmed by multiple changes of government from enjoying the exclusive sought-after prize of being part of this inner circle or club and doing so without having to lower themselves and be 'vulgarly loyal' like everyone else? Isn't it the ultimate status of elitist people not to be bothered or who actually encourage your ideological and social class opposites to electoral victory with impunity? Who are these people??!! This privilege is the equivalent of free but inherited 'welfare ' for the nobs! This is their exclusive 'benefit system' only eligible for the few! Their influence is largely concealed but they may control large parts of every aspect of individual or collective life, irrespective of the two-party system!!?? Or is this another social scientist graduate who actually wants there to be an establishment controlling media, political, economic, social sporting patronage or able to black-ball anyone anywhere? Of course it is!! As a Painter, I am disappointed that there is no such subject matter to bellyache! I know, if only there was meat in the sandwich to carp-on, but unfortunately that stuff comes from the same conspiratorial wishful thinking that 'England has never won the football world cup, and that Wembley 1966 was a set up and visual con trick!

But there are more cynical tricks that both major parties play today! Psychologically a government may be elected but will extend their rule and policy making beyond their term of office in order to block a new opposition administration but will impose policies to be put in place to leapfrog 'piggy in the middle' administrations!!? What? This means an extension of duration of implementation and impact of policies to control an opposition government until eventually it can be returned to office, when they can profit and get the credit for their long-term original policy 10 or 15 or 20 years later! Welcome to a two-party system of mutual exploitation and government by sabotage!! So, when you vote today for an MP just remember that you are voting for their party to be voted in by the next decade or two later!? There's more, what if each party selects leaders who will not win an election, deliberately??!! Some would want to avoid certain times with difficult and divisive issues to fall on one's ministerial brief. Do people really want a poisoned chalice or a political minefield? Or would you lose in order to get rid of a generation of deadwood? So, a vote for you is a vote that is either squandered or not wanted? What about the integrity of the ballot box? What if there is political self-harm if the powerful want to make sure their party and candidate fail?

There is no doubt that both major parties have to bide their time, but they also have to time a implementation of a policy to be already irreversible and whose costs are set to spiral to evaporate the opposition government's agenda, How to time your administrations is no doubt a guesstimation, but you'd want to cash in on a long-term profit that you can't afford to let the opposition reap the rewards of your hard work! So, being in opposition could be an advantage, or could government by opposition or at least government in waiting!?! Your legacy may be that you lose 2 or 3 or 4 general elections but rule the long-term roost! But are the unlucky administrations in between your agenda, also activating their long play agenda too?

So, have we arrived at economic and political long-term agendas versus the immediate? And who would have engineered such transformations and new narratives but..... New Labour! Who actually set the leap frogging of the standard two and fro of party-political thinking but PM and Chancellor Brown, whilst Blair is still blamed for spin and broken hearts! But surely New Labour was so reinventive that the nation would not vote on traditional class grounds by voting for Blair and then Modern Conservatism and ultimately Brexit!!!! Indeed, Brown's rethinking and remodelling of the public and private sector and his saving of the banks to stop Credit crunch by nationalising them, his upscaling his extra investment by cutting Corporation tax would provide an original and trans ideological revenue stream to pay for more public investment, and his new form of private investment via PFI transformed the landscape of politics and socio economics. Indeed, he was able to see the ultimate sale of Nat West (very much less vulnerable and more streamlined) under a new and hard-nosed (notice the difference between Starmer and Blair- it is deliberate, and we are meant to notice) Labour government!! Cameron's, May's, Johnson's, Truss' and even Sunak's Tory governments had been and gone and only today Nat West and the banking system have been able to revisit massive profits by being returned to the private sector by the long play that Starmer's government will financially benefit from its sale, and Brown's government was able to maintain and time it right to offer such a nest-egg for today's government 15 years after his ground-breaking agenda!

But History is slippery! New Labour were elected in 1997 in spite of the very successful Tory Chancellor Ken Clarke, who achieved 5% growth rate in the economy and yet the Tories lost the proceeding general election!!?? People always blame Chancellors because prices never go down they always rise with inflation naturally, but a warning from history should mean that although Liz Truss' economic car wreck of an economic disaster, people still feel she's less toxic than Tony Blair, even if they weren't born when he was first PM, and you don't want for any PM (even Starmer) to stick around too long because the country forget the virtue and the validity of PM Blair, let alone the coalition of New Labour leadership of Brown with the smarts and Blair with the legal mind and positivity and Campbell with the New Spin! No one wants them back, but few want to understand why! That counter-intuitive reaction of ‘don't outstay your welcome ‘surely must be instructive for all our political classes of which I'm afraid and quite relieved that I never could belong to! All that having to slide up a greasy pole in order to do time in an obscure part of any Westminster or Whitehall as a political country cousin wasting my and other people's time and missing out of the rest of what life has to offer!! Politics should be so much more than that, Pat and Andrew.